RSS
Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail is at it again. Yesterday, in an article entitled "The war against the car will never succeed", she maintains that government policies encouraging higher-density planning and public transit use are misguided, arguing that the province should be sinking more money into highways (which have worked soooo well to alleviate traffic congestion, eh?) to allow people to get around easier. Anyone who has read Wente's previous rants against intelligence know that she's pretty much wrong on everything, but here's some more things she's wrong about: The other day, as I drove to my exercise class (yes, yes, I know there's a contradiction there), people on the radio were telling me to take the TTC. There was a smog alert, and I was contributing to the problem. But it's next to impossible to get to my class by bus, so I drove. I wonder if Margaret knows that picking a closer gym may be a smart thing to do, or that going out for a jog or a bikeride is way cheaper and better on the air? She probably does, but prefers to add to the smog problem anyways. We all know that running on a treadmill or riding an exercise-bike staring at a wall or at a TV is vastly more interesting than real running and biking. Sure. Southern Ontario is the third-fastest growing region in North America -- in the next 25 years, the population is projected to grow by a staggering four million people. So what's the plan for constructing new road systems and highways? Um, there isn't one. How can a "journalist" not remember (or do research to find) news from only a month ago which states that "the province plans to build 130 kilometres of new highway and repair 1,600 more. They'll also build 64 new bridges and repair another 200, all in the next five years". There's your new roads, Wente. Do some research next time. The idea that people will use public transit to get to work ignores the fact that most people don't want to live near their work. And because people are so mobile, they no longer have to. Yeah, that's why people complain about long commutes? Or why they complain about gas prices? Or why they try to live close to their jobs to cut down on commute times and increase the time they get to spend with their kids? Oh... you're saying that everyone likes their long commutes. Suuuuure. People won't be as "mobile" as gas prices go up (there is only so much oil in the earth, you know). If there is a war against cars, there is no evidence of it in Toronto. Cars take precedence, relegating the rest of us to de facto second-class citizens. Fortunately, The end of Cheap Oil will win this battle. Those of us who think cars have too much influence in society will happily provide reinforcements. Tags: |
I doubt most people actually want to live far from their work. Many people just want to live in a house with some land that they can afford. Public transit can still work, it just means that we have to make better use of our land as we grow.
Most people don't keep jobs for more than 5 or 10 years right now. If Southern Ontario grows the way predicted, and we ignored any attempt at density, we'll be moving homes every few years as one person in a household changes jobs. Or else people will just put up with commuting from the new towns of North Bowmanville to West Newmarket. This can't be what people want.
Those anti-transit quotes sound like they are from people who are pointing out that buses are nearly empty in many cities right now. That doesn't mean that they must be empty.
Her solutions:
Less polluting fuels - ethanol? It's being done. It doesn't solve congestion or commute times. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I suspect it doesn't solve the pollution issue either. There are a lot of questions about ethanol still.
Intelligent roads - does she mean one's with nice wide bike lanes? Ones where pedestrians aren't afraid of standing near the curb? Or does she want every road turned into a miniature expressway, so no one is faced with a gas guzzling red light? Better traffic flow can only make an incremental improvement in pollution and energy consumption. Highway fuel consumption numbers are something like 20% better than city, and that would be the best you could hope for by improving traffic flow.
Intelligent vehicles - she must be referring to a bicycle.
Peak-time user fees - I don't think many transit advocates would oppose this.
Group taxis - Go ahead and share your taxi. No one on a bus is going to stop you.
So she has a couple reasonable suggestions, but they're not going to solve the problem of a transportation system that can handle the millions more people that will live here. It's too bad this type of social support for car use is still promoted. Imposing a single way of life, an expensive and unhealthy one, on all others is no way to progress.
Relax. In my opinion, by the time Margaret Wente proclaims something as "fact" (i.e. "The war on cars will never succeed") it means the war is basically over. Kind of like when Newsweek names the latest "trend" on its cover: forget it, the trend is over.
Where I got a real kick with Wente's column yesterday was when she quotes that California planning professor, Peter Gordon. That quote, "Transit subsidies are hugely greater than any subsidies to the automobile," was so ridiculous I wondered if she'd made it up. So I googled it.
Turns out it's from an interview in this hysterical anti-urban "magazine" called "Reason," conducted eight years ago. Here is the link: <
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XcFhEozU0UQJ:www.reason.com/9806/fe.gordon.html+%22transit+subsidies+are+hugely+greater+than+any+subsidies+to+the+automobile%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1>.
But if you can stomach it, read through the interview, for this gem: "Reason: How are you perceived in the planning community? Are you on the fringe?
Gordon: I'm at the edge of the fringe."
Wente's clearly lost it. And it's not just the "War against cyclists" I'm talking about, either.
Wow, did not know people even bothered to read anything she wrote?
By 
, at
5:01 PM
Joe,
I just moved out to Vancouver, and I have to say that being a cyclist in this city is a treat. There are 170km of bike trails in the city, and they aren't simply scenic. No. Most downtown city streets have bike lanes, and, in non-downtown locations, entire streets have 'cyclist first' priority, not to mention crossing buttons for streetlights which are well-located for a cyclist who doesn't want to walk out on the sidewalk.
I love Toronto, but it really needs to get its cycling infrastructure together. It really is pathetic.
That being said, thanks to you for pushing to make T. O. a better place to be a cyclist. It all starts with sites like this.
Darren - great points. Blobby - I'm not unrelaxed... I'm just constantly amazed at what passes as journalism. NK - Vancouver sounds fantastic. It's one of those places I've wanted to visit but have yet to. Maybe you can give me a biking tour when I make it out? :)
Nice post sir, I'm going to link to it on my blog, and I'm mentioning your t-shirts in this post as well.
Keep up the great work.
Tuco.
I read this article last week and it frustrated me as well. I was going to write about it in my blog but I knew it would just put me in a bad mood, so I passed. Wente's argument is childish and defensive (basically from what I can see it is "people like driving so they will keep driving, nyaa nyaa.")
To suggest that we slow investment in alternatives to cars strikes me as insane; to even infer that our government does not invest in the automobile is simply bizarre, considering that most of the past half century has been spent doing little more than funding, constructing, selling and expanding car-based suburbia.
Her arguments also overlook the fact that in the near future many people will no longer have a choice about whether they drive: a non-car life will be thrust upon them by means of high oil prices and the economic shrivelling they will eventually cause. In the meantime, we need to start building an infrastructure that makes modern life without a car possible.
Right now car-free life is an uphill struggle, even in one of the most pedestrian-friendly urban neighbourhoods in the country.
We need to get the Globe to offer a public apology for that column. It becomes more offensive and ridiculous the more you think about it.
Post a Comment